NADIR LALANI Vs. RESHMA PIRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 4/1/2025 passed by the learned 1st First Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Arbitration Case No. 198/2024, whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Sec. 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 11/4/2003 and two children, namely Ayan (elder son who is major) and Anaya (aged about 11 years) were born out of wedlock. He further submits that there were disputes between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 owing to which, they approached the Arbitrator, namely, His Highness Prince Aga Kha Shia Imami Islamic Conciliation and Arbitration Board for Central Northern and Eastern India, Yavatmal (Maharashtra) to resolve the said dispute on the basis of mediation and settlement. He contends that with the consent of the parties, a deed of divorce was passed by the Arbitrator on 7/1/2021 and a certificate was also issued. He further contends that according to Clause 11(d) of the agreement, the children would stay in Rajnandgaon (C.G.) till they attain majority. He argues that on premises of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 1, the parties approached the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon for dissolution of marriage and a decree was passed on 17/11/2021. He further argues that respondent No. 1 took away their daughter Anaya (respondent No. 2) from the joint custody of the petitioner and respondent No. 1 to Hyderabad without assigning any reason and therefore, the conduct on the part of respondent No. 1 is in breach of the agreement dtd. 7/1/2021. He avers that thereafter, the petitioner approached the learned Family Court for enforcement of the award dtd. 7/1/2021 by filing an application under Sec. 36 of the Act, 1996 but the learned Court below rejected the application. He further avers that respondent No. 1 knowing very well the conditions of the agreement took away the daughter/ respondent No. 2 to Hyderabad without any sufficient cause and thus contravened Clause 11 (a) of the agreement, therefore, the learned Court below ought to have executed the award.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the material/ documents available on the record.